Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Log inSign up
Challenges
Datasets
Workspaces
Papers
Discussions
Leaderboard
Blog
Job Board
Q3AS

© 2026 Aqora Quantum S.A.S.

TermsPrivacyLegal Notice

Vieweg+Teubner eBooks

Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?

N. Rosen

Published Jan 1, 1979• 30 citations
Publisher

Abstract

ZusammenfassungIn 1935 there appeared a paper with the above title (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen 1935) in The Physical Review. This paper was the outgrowth of a number of discussions held by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and myself at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. The purpose of the discussions was to help us understand the concepts and principles of quantum mechanics, and what we thought we understood troubled us. For the conclusion we reached in these discussions was that the answer to the above question is, “No”.

DOI
10.1007/978-3-322-91080-6_6

Related papers

My life with Einstein, December 2005

N. David Mermin

On 25 March 1935, the Physical Review received a paper from Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, with the title “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” A few days later, on 30 March 1935, I was born. My life with Einstein was off to a promising start. Some would call it an inauspicious start. Abraham Pais, for example, says in his otherwise admirable biography of Einstein [1] that “the only part of this article that will ultimately survive, I believe, is this last phrase [ No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit this ], which so poignantly summarizes Einstein's views on quantum mechanics in his later years.” But today, in this centenary of the Einstein annus mirabilis, as the EPR paper and I both turn 70, it is, in fact, the most cited of all Einstein's papers [2]. The debate over its conceptual implications rages hotter than ever, and for the first time, practical (well, for the moment still gedanken practical) applications of the EPR effect have emerged in cryptography and in other areas of quantum information processing. Being only five weeks old, I was unprepared to pay attention to the article that appeared in the New York Times on 4 May 1935 under an elaborate set of headlines and subheads: And I was completely oblivious to the stern rebuke from Einstein himself, published three days later in the Times , which declared that “any information upon which the article … is based was given to you without my authority. It is my invariable practice to discuss scientific matters only in the appropriate forum and I deprecate advance publication of any announcement in regard to such matters in the secular press.” Apparently Podolsky had tipped off the Times to the article, which did not appear in the sacred press until the 15 May issue of Physical Review. It is not clear that Einstein ever forgave him, and I wish I had been old enough to send Podolsky a cross letter myself. Anyone growing up in America in the 1940s knew that the preeminent genius of our age, and perhaps of any other, lived in Princeton, New Jersey, had a predilection for baggy sweaters, and was always badly in need of a haircut—as far ahead of his time in dress and grooming as he was ahead in science during his 1905 annus mirabilis.

Cambridge University Press eBooks•Jan 5, 2016•0 citations

The Complete Theory of Quantum Mechanics

Kazmer Ujvarosy

Based on a thought experiment the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper’s authors concluded that in quantum mechanics the mathematical objects called wave functions fail to describe the physical reality and consequently quantum theory is incomplete. They left open the question of whether or not a complete description of the physical reality exists, but expressed their belief that such a complete theory is possible. In this paper I show that indeed a theory that gives a complete description of the physical reality exists.

•Dec 1, 2020•0 citations

Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?

Niels Henrik David Bohr

It is shown that a certain "criterion of physical reality" formulated in a recent article with the above title by A. Einstein, B. Podolsky and N. Rosen contains an essential ambiguity when it is applied to quantum phenomena. In this connection a viewpoint termed "complementarity" is explained from which quantum-mechanical description of physical phenomena would seem to fulfill, within its scope, all rational demands of completeness.

Physical Review•Oct 15, 1935•1,941 citations

Does the Wave Function Provide a Complete Description of Physical Reality?

Sheldon Goldstein, Joel L. Lebowitz

This is the introduction to the section on Quantum Mechanics in the centennial collection of noteworthy articles appearing in The Physical Review and Physical Review Letters through 1983, since it all began in 1893. The selections for this section are "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen; Bohr's response, with the same title; Bohm's first hidden variables paper: "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of `Hidden' Variables. I"; Aharonov and Bohm's "Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory"; and "Experimental Test of Bell's Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers" by Aspect, Dalibard and Roger.

arXiv:quant-ph/9512028•Dec 29, 1995•1 citation

The Einstein Podolsky Rosen Paradox: 'can Quantum - Mechanical Description of Physical Reality BE Considered COMPLETE?'.

Donald L. Reisler

•Jan 1, 1967•0 citations

Is Quantum Mechanics a Complete Theory?: A Philosophical Defense of Einstein's Position

U O Egbai

In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen published their thought experiment I a paper entitled, “Can Quantum – Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be considered complete?”. At that time, Bohr, Heisenberg, and the proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics, were saying that Quantum theory is a complete and the last theory in physics event though it does not provide any picture of the world separate from our observations of it. The message Einstein conveyed to his colleagues was that the quantum theory is not a “complete” theory because it does not describe certain important aspects of reality which are physically real event if they are not observed. In sympathy with Einstein's position, this paper argues that, the real nature of physical reality cannot be explained “at once” by a single theory. Reality is still unfolding and a new theory that will surpass the predictive ability of Quantum Mechanics will soon emerge. SOPHIA: An African Journal of Philosophy Vol. 8 (2) 2006: pp.14-19

Sophia An African Journal of Philosophy•Aug 24, 2007•0 citations
ZusammenfassungIn 1935 there appeared a paper with the above title (Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen 1935) in The Physical Review. This paper was the outgrowth of a number of discussions held by Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky and myself at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. The purpose of the discussions was to help us understand the concepts and principles of quantum mechanics, and what we thought we understood troubled us. For the conclusion we reached in these discussions was that the answer to the above question is, “No”.
On 25 March 1935, the Physical Review received a paper from Albert Einstein, Boris Podolsky, and Nathan Rosen, with the title “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?” A few days later, on 30 March 1935, I was born. My life with Einstein was off to a promising start. Some would call it an inauspicious start. Abraham Pais, for example, says in his otherwise admirable biography of Einstein [1] that “the only part of this article that will ultimately survive, I believe, is this last phrase [ No reasonable definition of reality could be expected to permit this ], which so poignantly summarizes Einstein's views on quantum mechanics in his later years.” But today, in this centenary of the Einstein annus mirabilis, as the EPR paper and I both turn 70, it is, in fact, the most cited of all Einstein's papers [2]. The debate over its conceptual implications rages hotter than ever, and for the first time, practical (well, for the moment still gedanken practical) applications of the EPR effect have emerged in cryptography and in other areas of quantum information processing. Being only five weeks old, I was unprepared to pay attention to the article that appeared in the New York Times on 4 May 1935 under an elaborate set of headlines and subheads: And I was completely oblivious to the stern rebuke from Einstein himself, published three days later in the Times , which declared that “any information upon which the article … is based was given to you without my authority. It is my invariable practice to discuss scientific matters only in the appropriate forum and I deprecate advance publication of any announcement in regard to such matters in the secular press.” Apparently Podolsky had tipped off the Times to the article, which did not appear in the sacred press until the 15 May issue of Physical Review. It is not clear that Einstein ever forgave him, and I wish I had been old enough to send Podolsky a cross letter myself. Anyone growing up in America in the 1940s knew that the preeminent genius of our age, and perhaps of any other, lived in Princeton, New Jersey, had a predilection for baggy sweaters, and was always badly in need of a haircut—as far ahead of his time in dress and grooming as he was ahead in science during his 1905 annus mirabilis.
Based on a thought experiment the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen paper’s authors concluded that in quantum mechanics the mathematical objects called wave functions fail to describe the physical reality and consequently quantum theory is incomplete. They left open the question of whether or not a complete description of the physical reality exists, but expressed their belief that such a complete theory is possible. In this paper I show that indeed a theory that gives a complete description of the physical reality exists.
This is the introduction to the section on Quantum Mechanics in the centennial collection of noteworthy articles appearing in The Physical Review and Physical Review Letters through 1983, since it all began in 1893. The selections for this section are "Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality Be Considered Complete?" by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen; Bohr's response, with the same title; Bohm's first hidden variables paper: "A Suggested Interpretation of the Quantum Theory in Terms of `Hidden' Variables. I"; Aharonov and Bohm's "Significance of Electromagnetic Potentials in the Quantum Theory"; and "Experimental Test of Bell's Inequalities Using Time-Varying Analyzers" by Aspect, Dalibard and Roger.
In 1935, Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen published their thought experiment I a paper entitled, “Can Quantum – Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be considered complete?”. At that time, Bohr, Heisenberg, and the proponents of the Copenhagen interpretation of Quantum mechanics, were saying that Quantum theory is a complete and the last theory in physics event though it does not provide any picture of the world separate from our observations of it. The message Einstein conveyed to his colleagues was that the quantum theory is not a “complete” theory because it does not describe certain important aspects of reality which are physically real event if they are not observed. In sympathy with Einstein's position, this paper argues that, the real nature of physical reality cannot be explained “at once” by a single theory. Reality is still unfolding and a new theory that will surpass the predictive ability of Quantum Mechanics will soon emerge. SOPHIA: An African Journal of Philosophy Vol. 8 (2) 2006: pp.14-19